On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Meanwhile, the fever-prone Mike Whitney attributes it all to American
> imperial manipulations:
>
> <http://www.countercurrents.org/whitney120808.htm>.
>
> Well, maybe, but it hasn't worked out too well, has it?
Well, there is a very cynical way to look at it summed in this comment why playing is better than not playing even when it goes wrong. (It was originally buried in a commentary on Matt Yglesias's blog; I saw it because it was flagged by Jonathan Schwartz at A Tiny Revolution).
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/08/the_limits_of_bluster.php#comment-608408
No one blew it. Playing the Great Game (and often losing) is far
superior to not playing. Enabling, stoking, inflating, and simply
declaring national security crises is deeply gratifying for
nationalist-imperialist-authoritarian politicians and their large
and influential intellectual and industrial clique. It
legitimizes the national security state. It makes "Very Serious
People" indulge in their "Very Seriousness".
<end excerpt>
The penultimate line is the most depressing -- creating crises may in fact be good for imperialism.
And the ultimate line applies all too well to your wonderful roundup of dumbass opinion that started this thread off.
Michael